Which Bible?

CLICK HERE TO READ ABOUT THE BATTLE FOR GOD’S WORD
————————————————————————————————————–
You believe in many churches but One Church made up of all true believers, right? Then why should there not be many bibles, but One Bible made up of God’s words in the English language?

In the 1960’s a strong New Age proponent Dr Richard Day said that one strategy that will be followed to reach a universal holy book acceptable to all people is to change the Bible “bit by bit”. It is obvious that this has been happening on a large scale with new translations being published regularly. These translations are a fulfillment of NEW AGE STRATEGY and NOT the Word of God.

Now I have had many Christians telling me their otherwise Godly church reads only from the ESV, or even NIV, or that they got saved reading a modern translation. And, some say, if a little bit of poison in a big glass of water still kills, why are they not spiritually dead? Well, the answer is two-fold. Such church IS usually less alive for God than what they want to believe, and second, the old saying that a little bit of poison still kills is not entirely true. It depends on how much poison, and how strong your system is. Obviously the more the poison, and the weaker the person who drinks it, the deadlier it will be. Same with modern translations.

WHAT IS GOD’S WORD
SOLA SCRIPTURA means “only God’s Word”. Some say what they mean is referring to the original autography and not to any particular translation. The problem of course is we do not have access to the original autography so need to know WHICH TRANSLATION is God’s Word (or did God not preserve His Word for us today?) If no translation is 100% accurate, then which one is to be studied?

Let’s therefore look at our Bible translations found today.

In 2 Pet 3:15-17 God warns those who corrupt God’s Word as wicked. In the OT Jeremiah also warns against those who have perverted the words of the living God (Jer 23:36).

The changes in the NIV, ESV, NKJV and most modern Bible “translations” are not unimportant. They materially affect the central themes of God’s Word. Similar changes that we find in the NIV are found in other modern versions.

One argument FOR these modern versions usually goes that if one reads the whole Word you can get around these issues. For example, even though the modern versions seem to attack the deity of Jesus in one or two instances, reading the whole Bible will show that He was after all God. The answer to this is at least two to three-fold:

THE REASONABLE READER TEST- The problem of course is that the average reader does not read the whole Bible, neither is he trained in Theology. In Law it is called the Reasonable Person Test- the verses must be read as it will be understood by the average, reasonable person who is in his or her right mind. I’m sure you will agree that reading these following verses in the modern versions will indeed give the impression of erroneous belief.

SATAN’S PLAN – Would Satan be happy to keep God’s Word as it is? Or would he want to infiltrate translations with error, like he did with Eve in the garden of Eden

“Did God really say?…”(Gen 3:1) Studying the New Age Movement (NAM) for a Ph.D degree it became clear to me that there is an invisible evil hand driving the NAM to amongst other things corrupt God’ Word in an effort towards syncretism.

ACCUMULATIVE EVIDENCE- If the modern versions ONLY affected omitting reference to the blood of Christ, for example, one could perhaps have said it can be excused However, as we will see the modern versions distort MANY MATERIAL issues, not just one or two. As in a court of Law where circumstantial evidence accumulate to the point of beyond reasonable doubt, I think after studying these one can ONLY come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable doubt left that the modern versions are corrupt in their translations (whether you believe in a Satanic conspiracy to corrupt it or not)

The modern versions perverts the deity of Jesus Christ

One major issue that distinguishes the true Church from false cults is the issue of the deity of Christ. Most (like the Jehova’s Witnesses) will say that Jesus is not God.

I TIM 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJV) reads, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:GODWAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . .” The King James says, plainly, “GOD was manifest in the flesh”. The NIV, ESV and NASB all twists “GOD” to “HE”. The NIV simply reads“HE appearedin a body”? So What? Everyone has “appeared in a body”! “He” is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOTmake sense! The modern versions subtly (again- see Gen 3:1) perverts I Tim 3:16 into utter nonsense!

PHIL 2:6: The KJV again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: “Who, being in the form ofGod, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD” The NIV, ESV and NASB again say more or less the same thing. Read the NIV for example: “Who, being in very nature God,DIDNOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be used for his own advantage,”. The NIV and other modern versions again subtly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!

The modern versions perverts the virgin birth

LUKE 2:33: The King James Bible reads, “And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at thosethings which were spoken of him.” The NIV, ESV and NASV talk about the child Jesus’

“ FATHER and mother” marveled at what was said about him. The “CHILD’S FATHER”?Was Joseph Jesus’s father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtle, “perversion” of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43. Now of course one could argue that the modern versions mean “father” in the human, parental sense. However, again the Reasonable test applies. Will the average, reasonable person, who is perhaps still an unbeliever who does not know the Bible well, not be subtly influenced here to believe that Jesus was NOT divine?

The modern Bibles remove the blood of Jesus Christ

COL 1:14: The KJV reads, “In whom we have redemptionTHROUGH HIS BLOOD, even theforgiveness of sins:” The NIV, ESV and NASV read, “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” The NIV rips out the precious words “THROUGH HIS BLOOD”! But we know that redemption is ONLY“THROUGH HIS BLOOD”. Hebrews 9:22, reads, “. . . withoutshedding of BLOOD is no remission.” That old song says, “What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!”

The modern Bibles pervert John 3:16 into a lie

JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, “For God so loved the world that he gave hisONE AND ONLYSON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” The ESV reads “his ONLY SON”.

Jesus was NOT “the one and only son” – Adam is called the “son of God” in Luke 3:38, there are “sons of God” in Job 1:6 and Christians are called “sons of God” in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2-but Jesus was the “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON”! By removing the critical word “BEGOTTEN” – The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.

The modern Bibles make Jesus out to be a liar

If Jesus can be found to have told a lie He was not perfect and thus just a man. JOHN 7:8-10 The NIV reads, “8 You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.

10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. This makes the average reader to think that Jesus lied by saying He was not going to the festival, but later He did go.

The KJV reads “…I am not going up yet…” This changes the meaning of the sentence completely! Jesus never lied- He simply stated that He was not ready to go at that moment!

20 of the modern Bible “translations” miss this one single word “yet”.

The modern Bibles promote infant baptism

In Acts 8:36 the Ethiopian Eunuch askes what he must do to get baptized. In verse 37 is the answer.” And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest [be baptized]. And he answered and said I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (KJV). Now look up the answer in any of 29 modern versions (including the ESV and NIV). That’s right – verse 37 IS GONE. Is this not a material issue!

The modern versions make homosexualism acceptable

Romans 1:26-32 also shows the “fruits” of “sowing” “. . .the TRUTH of God into a LIE. .

.” Verses 26-27 says “FOR THIS CAUSE (vs 25 for “changing the TRUTH of God into a LIE”) God gave them up untovile affections:for even their women did change thenatural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which isunseemly, . . .”

The last few years homosexuality and sexual perversion have “exploded” into the mainstream. Legislation has been changed to make same-sex marriages legal in many countries. Books such as Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy’s Roommate, promoting homosexuality, are in some public schools. According to The Washington Post, bisexuality and homosexuality, are the “in thing” in our public schools. Even churches are nowwelcoming homosexuals and are even ordaining them in the ministry! The Dutch Reformed Church has just made such a synod decision.

A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, “My lesbianism has ALWAYS been apart of me. . .” To no surprise, “sodomite” is completely removed from the NIV. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7) And of course, I Cor. 6:9, “. . . effeminate,nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . .” is replaced with the non-offensive “. . . nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . .” Notice the NIV in I Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn “homosexuals” or the “act of homosexuality” – but ONLY “homosexualOFFENDERS”. This explains why even churches are now no more in condemnation of homosexualism. In South-Africa the Dutch Reformed Church (NG Kerk) came to the same liberal conclusion about homsexuality- since their stance gets backed up by the latest Afrikaans Bibles!

The NIV’s publisher also publishes evil books

In 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by Harper & Row,

Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers). HarperCollins publishes “pro-homosexual” books such as Making Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality – described as “Beautifullyillustrated with full-color photography,. . . Making Out is the complete illustrated guide to lesbian sexuality and relationships. . .the intricacies of love play. . .” and many other pro-homosexual books! Zondervan also published THE SATANIC BIBLE.

Every time you purchase the NIV you are giving to people who produce pro-homosexuality, pornographic material — AND THE SATANIC BIBLE!

Do you really believe God would ALLOW His HOLY word to be “owned” by that group? “. .

“for what fellowship hath RIGHTEOUSNESS with UNRIGHTEOUSNESS? and what communion hath light with darkness?”2 Cor. 6:14

Do you actually believe God would ALLOW His Holy Word to published by the same ungodly people who publish the Satanic Bible?

Being born again, not of CORRUPTIBLE seed, but of INCORRUPTIBLE, by the WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)

Isn’t it EQUALLY amazing that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that is not OWNED by men?

That’s right! The King James Bible (we’re not talking about specific companies’ copyright – such as Thomas Nelson Inc.) has no COPYRIGHT ownership! It’s copyright is the CROWN COPYRIGHT which ALLOWS it to be published by ANYONE, ANYTIME! Without asking ANYBODY for permission!

“. . .but the word of God is NOT BOUND.” 2 Timothy 2:9

The modern versions rob Jesus Christ of worship!

In Matt. 8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, Mark 5:6, 15:19 “worshipped him” is removed in most modern versions. Instead some of these versions use the words “knelt before him” or “bowed before him”- which in those days, as today, were sign of respect but NOTNECESSARILY WORSHIP. Why doesn’t the NIV and other versions want Jesus Christ to beworshipped? Hint: see Luke 4:7, Matt. 4:9.

The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer

Isaiah 14:14 reveals Satan’s grandest desire, “I will be like the most High.”And with a littlesubtle perversion – the NIV in Isaiah 14:12 grants Satan’s wish!

ISAIAH 14:12: The KJV reads, “How art thou fallen from heaven, OLUCIFER, son of themorning!. . .” The NIV PERversion reads, “How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNINGSTAR, son of the dawn. . .” The NIV change “Lucifer” to “MORNING STAR”.

I thought the Lord Jesus Christ was the MORNING STAR?

Doesn’t Revelation 22:16 say, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these thingsin the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNINGSTAR“.

IS 14:15: The King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: “Yet thou shalt be brought downto HELL . . .” The NIV does NOT condemn Lucifer to HELL! The NIV reads, “But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . .” We all go to the GRAVE! Why doesn’t the NIV want Satanin hell?

The modern versions remove and pervert the place of hell

The word “hell” occurs 31 times in the Old Testament in the King James Bible. It also occurs sometime in the NKJV. In the Old Testament of the other modern versions it occurs–ZEROTIMES! The word “hell” is NOT in the Old Testament of the modern versions/

And what do they do with “hell”? Take PSALM 9:17 for example: The King James reads, “Thewicked shall be turned into HELL. . .” The NIV, reads, “The wicked return to the GRAVE. ..” We ALL “return to the GRAVE”!By removing “hell” the modern versions pervert Psalm 9:17 into nonsense!

In the New Testament the modern versions take out “hell” several times. And what “clearer” “easier to understand” word do they “update” hell with? HADES (Matt 16:18, Rev 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14- NIV) What “common person” understands HADES?Everybody knows what HELLis! Do you know what HADES is? Hades is not always a place of torment or terror. The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called “Happy Fields”. In theNew Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification! Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines HADES: “the underground abode of the dead in

Greek MYTHOLOGY“. The modern versions pervert your Bible into MYTHOLOGY!

The modern versions pervert The Lord’s Prayer into The Devil’s Prayer!

LUKE 11:2-4: The KJV reads, “. . .Our Fatherwhich art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thykingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.” The NKJV also says “Our Father inheaven…”

The NIV and other modern versions remove everything that refers to a Holy God in heaven -“WHICH ART IN HEAVEN. . . Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth. . . but DELIVER US FROM EVIL.” Everything that distinguishes God from the Devil is REMOVED!“OUR FATHER” of the NIV is “NOT IN HEAVEN” and “DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL!” I wonder who it could be? (hint: see John 8:44)

The Bible warns against taking away and adding to the words of God

– IT GIVES A WARNING EARLY IN THE BIBLE – Deut 4:2 reads: “YE SHALL NOT ADDunto theword which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it . . .”

– IT GIVES A WARNING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BIBLE – Proverbs 30:6, reads, “ADD THOUNOT unto his words . . .”

– IT GIVES A WARNING AT THE END OF THE BIBLE And just in case you missed it, GOD’S LASTWARNING is Revelation 22:18,19, “. . . If any manSHALL ADDunto these things. . .And ifany man shall TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDSof the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. . .”

Pro-modern version scholars often argue that it could in fact be the KJV that ADDS to God’ S Word and not the modern versions that TAKE AWAY from God’s Word. However, this argument is based on error and poor logic since it is the modern versions that are based on corrupt sources, not the KJV (see page 10).

Furthermore-on pure logic- what sounds more accurate- that Satan would ADD verses that show up the deity of Christ, his virgin birth, remission of sins by his blood,and overall glorifying God etc. Or Satan TAKING AWAY these verses?

The NIV completely “TAKETH AWAY” 17 verses!

Wonderful and precious verses like:

MATTHEW 18:11: “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”.

ACTS 8:37: “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And heanswered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

After Mark 16:8 the NIV says, “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancientwitnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” There goes another 12 verses!And by the way, that is absolutely untrue! The book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over 400 pages of documented evidence for Mark 16:9-20, that has never been refuted, nor ever will!

After John 7:52, the NIV, reads, “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and otherancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11″ There goes another 12 verses!

Matt. 12:47, 21:44, Luke 22:43 and 22:44 are all removed in the footnotes!

That’s 45 complete verses the NIV removes from the text or in the footnotes!

The NIV “TAKETH AWAY” 64,576 words!

Don’t look for the “mercyseat” in the NIV – GONE!

Don’t look for “Jehovah” in the NIV – GONE!

Don’t look for the “Godhead” in the NIV – GONE!

The NIV removes wonderful Bible “terms” like remission, regeneration, impute, propitiation, new testament and many others!

FACT: According to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories – the KJV was graded easier than 23 other modern versions. In selected analysis, the KJV average grade level was 5.8 – the NIV was 8.4! (New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, pp.195-209) This is perhaps due to the fact that the KJV is more poetic and children thus study it easier. What is easier to remember “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” (KJV) or “ The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing” (NIV)? In any event in High School students read Shakespeare’s works, which are written in a much higher form of English than modern conversational English. The reason for this is because it is an educational fact that reading at a higher level than normal sharpens the mind to understand the ordinary readings better.

So EVEN if the KJV was more difficult to read and understand (which has been proven not true)- if it is more accurate than any modern version shouldn’t’ the (alleged) difficulty to understand not deter us?

LIE 3) Older and more reliable manuscripts have been discovered since the King James Bible.

FACT: Dr. Sam Gipp writes, “The fact is, that the King James translators hadALL OF THEREADINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today.” (The Answer Book, Gipp, p.110)And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 90 – 95 per cent of allreadings agree with the King James Bible! These orginal readings are called the Textus Receptus. The modern versions are NOT built on the Textus Receptus. See the next section about the origins of the different versions.

LIE 4) The modern versions are more accurate.

FACT: The KJV is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics. The modern versions use “dynamic equivalence”. Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change and subtract to make the verse say what they “thought” it should! The Preface to the NIV even says, “. . .they have strivenfor more than a word-for-word translation. . .” This automatically means that the different authors on the translations panels, who each come with their own subjective beliefs and moral standards, will influence the translation subjectively. If the translation is not done “word for word” it gets done with the bias of the translator- to the detriment of TRUTH!

THE ORIGINS OF THE DIFFERENT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

There are at least 18 Bibles based on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS. The best-known version is the KJV- also the most accurate and can thus be regarded as THE WORD OF GOD.

Most modern versions such as the NIV, ESV and many others are NOT based on the Textus Receptus but on so-called ALEXANDRIAN TEXTS.

Let’s compare them:

A- ACCURATE COPIES FROM THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the “Textus Receptus” or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

B- CORRUPTED COPIES FROM ALEXANDRIAN TEXTS

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differencesbetween the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.

That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Even these two manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus much of the time. When they do not agree, it is because Marcion (120-160 AD) or Origin (184-254 AD) or whoever, corrupted them.

It is clear that the modern versions are different than the King James Bible but, we still need to answer the question: Why are they different?

There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the Peshitta is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century.

These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree? The answer lies in REJECTING these sources altogether, as did the writers of the KJV.

______________________________________________

Argument by Modern Versions

“The Bible is just like any other book. It is not liable to Satanic attack. In order to find out what the original copy probably said, you just find the oldest copies available and use them.

“We don’t have the exact word of God now anyway, so a few disagreements will not matter.”

Argument by KJV

“The Bible is not ‘just like any other book.’ Satan hates it because it is the Word of God. Satan has been trying to destroy it ever since the Garden of Eden.

“However, God has preserved His Word for us. He preserved the Old Testament through the Levites as priests and He has preserved the New Testament through the body of believers through the witness of the Holy Spirit.”

The vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible-believing Christians.

In 1516 Erasmus compiled, edited, and printed the Greek “Textus Receptus” (received text). This is the text that the Protestants of the Reformation knew to be the Word of God (inerrant and infallible). The King James Bible was translated from the “Textus Receptus.”
______________________________________________

Argument by Modern Versions

The oldest surviving manuscripts must be the most reliable. Therefore, when determining what manuscripts to depend on, the Vaticanus (350 AD) and the Sinaiticus (about 350 AD) should be accepted as correct (even if 998 other manuscripts disagree with them).

Argument by KJV

The oldest manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are not reliable at all. They were influenced amongst other things by Greek Philosophers. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus even disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone. This cannot make them accurate or reliable at all.

* The Vaticanus

It was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Catholic Vatican Library in 1481 AD. Even though it was discovered in Catholic possession Protestants seem not to question this. In spite of being in excellent condition, it omits:

Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28

Psalms 106-138

Matthew 16:2-3

The Pauline Pastoral Epistles

Hebrews 9:14-13:25

Revelation

These parts were probably left out on purpose.

Besides all that, in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in the same places and the same sentences in the same places.

The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they didn’t use it because they knew it is unreliable. The Vaticanus also contains the Apocrypha.

* The Sinaiticus

The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the “Shepherd of Hermes” and the “Epistle of Barnabas” (two Apogyphical books) to the New Testament.

The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgeon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament. He writes about the Sinaiticus: “On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.

Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less that 115 times in the New Testament.”

On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time that it was copied, but most of them were made in the 6th or 7th century.

Phillip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called “Which Version” in the early 1900’s. He writes concerning the Sinaiticus:

“From these facts, therefore, we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose.”

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are the oldest, but they are not the best manuscripts!!!

That’s where the modern translators went wrong! They foolishly accepted the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus simply because they were old.

They did not attempt to find out why they were so vastly different from the Greek text that real Christians have known to be the infallible Word of God.

When the modern versions say in the footnotes, “Some of the oldest mss. do not contain vv. 9-20,” or “This verse not found in the most ancient authorities,” they are taking their information from the corrupt and unreliable Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts!

Don’t fall for the “oldest are the best” line! The oldest are not the best! For example, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both leave out the last 12 verses of Mark, concerning the resurrection of Christ.

But, there is not one other manuscript, either uncial (written entirely in capital letters) or cursive, that leave out this passage. There are 18 other uncial (capital letter) manuscripts that have the passage in and at least 600 cursives (small letter) manuscripts that all have thepassage in.

The evidence is at least 618 to 2 against the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus that the last 12 verses of Mark SHOULD BE THERE. Yet, look in your modern version.

The New American Standard Bible puts all these verses (Mark 16:9-20) in brackets, saying that these verses probably were not in the original writings. The other versions use brackets or footnotes.

That’s ridiculous. In a court of law, if you had 618 witnesses that saw something happen, and you had two witnesses that said they did not see it happen, would you accept the testimony of the 618 or the testimony of the 2?

You see, it is foolish for any translator to accept a manuscript simply because of age, without checking to find out where it came from and if it was reliable or not.
_______________________________________________

Beyond reasonable doubt, or at the very least on a balance of probabilities, the TEXTUS RECEPTUS is far more accurate than the OLDER MANUSCRIPTS.
Then why read modern Bible versions based on these older manuscripts?WESTCOTT AND HORT

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were the two English “scholars” who produced the corrupt Greek text of the modern versions. Their dominating influence on the revision committee of 1871-1881 accounts for most of thecorruption that we have today in modern translations. The Bible believer should keep several points in mind when discussing these two men. The following information is well documented in Final Authority, by William Grady, and in Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions:

Together, the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and the Life and Letters of FentonJohn Anthony Hort run over 1,800 pages. A personal salvation testimony is not given once for either man, and the name “Jesus” is found only nine times!

Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship.

Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments.

Hort believed in baptismal regeneration as taught in the Catholic church.

Hort rejected the infallibility of Scripture.

Hort took great interest in the works of Charles Darwin, while both he and Westcott rejected the literal account of Creation.

Westcott did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, or a literal Heaven.

Both men rejected the doctrine of a literal Hell, and they supported prayers for the dead in purgatory.

Hort refused to believe in the Trinity.

Hort refused to believe in angels.

Westcott confessed that he was a communist by nature.

Hort confessed that he hated democracy in all it’s forms.

Westcott also did his share of beer drinking. In fact, only twelve years after the Revised Version was published, Westcott was a spokesman for a brewery.

While working on their Greek text (1851-1871), and while working on the Revision Committee for the Revised Version (1871-1881), Westcott and Hort were also keeping company with “seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” (I Tim. 4:1). Both men took great interest in occult practices and clubs. They started the Hermes Club in 1845, the GhostlyGuild in 1851, and Hort joined a secret club called The Apostles in the same year. They also started the Eranus Club in 1872. These were spiritualists groups which believed in such unscriptural practices as communicating with the dead (necromancy).

The Westcott and Hort Greek text was SECRETLY given to the Revision Committee.

The members of the Revision Committee of 1881 were sworn to a pledge of secrecy in regard to the new Greek text being used, and they met in silence for ten years.

The corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort was not released to the public until just five days before the debut of the Revised Version. This prevented Bible-believing scholars like Dean Burgon from reviewing it and exposing it for the piece of trash that it was.

QUESTION: Does this sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the Devil?

That is correct. God’s Word was being prepared, just as it was in New Testament times when readers only had the Old Testament and perhaps some of the New testament books.

It was available though in the Antiochian manuscripts.

The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts existent throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, (NOT to be confused with Jerome’s corrupt “Vulgate”) or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD.

That it would be difficult indeed to gather all of these sources together and place them in the hands of the common man gives credence to God’s reasoning for the collation and translation of the King James Bible.

The KJV has been through several editions.

If someone decides to produce a “new Bible version”, then they must also convince Christians that there is a NEED and a justifiable CAUSE for the new version. One of the deceitful excuses being used today for producing new versions is that the King James Biblehas been revised several times since 1611, and that a new revision is needed once again. While spreading this piece of deceitful misinformation, the KJV critics hold their breath, hoping that no one will be intelligent enough to ask for specific details about these “revisions”. The many revisions that have occurred since 1881 bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the various EDITIONS of the KJV prior to 1881. The modern revisors are just trying to justify their sins!

There were only FOUR actual EDITIONS of the King James Bible produced after 1611: 1629,1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations (like the new versions SINCE 1881), and they really weren’t even “revisions”.

The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct printing errors, and two of the original King James translators assisted in the work.

The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638, only 27 years after the first printing.

Please bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600’s!

Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and spelling rules were established.

There were no new translations, and there were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being deceitful or stupid–or both. The many other so-called “revisions” of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations do not start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901 (ASV). So if some punk walks up with a smirky grin on his face and asks you, “So which King James Bible do you have, the 1611, the 1629, the 1638, the 1762, or the 1769?”, you can simply state that you have a 1769 edition of the King James 1611Authorized Version.

All early editions of the KJV contained the apocryphal books.

Another favorite lie of the critics is that the original KJV of 1611 included the Apocrypha, which no true Christian today accepts as Scripture. The Apocrypha is a collection of several pagan writings which the Catholic church accepts as inspired Scripture. In fact, the Council of Trent (1546) pronounced a CURSE upon anyone who denied that these books were inspired. The King James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them in the canon as such. They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New testament as a historical document, not as Scripture.

King James authorised the new Bible translation for political reasons.

Yes and he laid down strict rules for the translation. The Bible had to pass 14 strict examinations- which ADDED to its accuracy, not distracted from it!

The translators of the KJV 1611 were untrained in Koine Greek.

First is that, the scholarship of the men who translated the King James Bible is literally unsurpassable by today’s scholars. Two books available best illustrate this and should be read by anyone who wants to seriously study the subject. They are Translators Revived , by Alexander McClure, Maranatha Publications, and The Men Behind the King James Version, by Gustavus Paine, Baker Book House.

The men of the King James translation committee were scholars of unparalleled ability. A brief description of their several abilities is found under a previous section.

Second, it would be foolish and contradictory to believe that today’s scholars evercould equal or surpass those of the Authorized Version. We have better technology yes, but that does not automatically make us better scholars.

Most Christians agree that the world, with time, degenerates. Morals have degenerated since 1611. Character has degenerated since 1611. Even our atmosphere has degenerated. Are we then to believe that education has gotten better? Only a worshiper of education could pretend to believe such a fairy tale. Education has degenerated along with the entire world system and could never produce a scholar equal to those of nearly four hundred years ago

The KJV translation of the NT is based on relatively recent Greek manuscripts.

See Lie no 3 above.

The early editions of the KJV are not based on the Received Text since the Textus Receptus did not exist in 1611

The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these being Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure.

Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament. The first in 1516 was followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther for his historic and earth shaking German translation. His third, fourth, and fifth followed in 1522, 1527 and 1535. Erasmus’ work was magnificent and set the standard for centuries to come.

Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 through 1549, 1550 and lastly 1551.

Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament. Four were published in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. These were printed in folio, meaning a sheet of paper was folded over once, thus producing four separate pages of the book. He also published five octavo editions, these dates being; 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590 and 1604. “Octavo” means that one printed sheet folded in such a way as to produce eight separate pages of the text. Books printed in this manner tended to have a smaller page size than folio works, but sometimes led to the need of a work being printed in two or more volumes. It is Beza’s edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators.

Some years later, the Elzevir brothers published three editions of the Greek New Testament. The dates being; 1624, 1633 and 1641. They followed closely the work of Beza, who in turn had followed the standard set by Erasmus. In the preface to their edition of 1633 they coined a phrase which was to become so popular as to be retrofitted to texts which preceded it by many years. They stated in Latin “textum ergo babes, nunc ab omnibus receptum…” ei “According to the text now held from the volume received…” Thus the title “Textus Receptus” or “Received Text” was born. So we see that, even though the name “Textus Receptus” was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch.ANSWERING THE CRITICS
(Answering https://www.jashow.org/articles/uncategorized/the-king-james-controversy-revisited-program-7/)John Ankerberg: Let me close today with this. All of the biblical translations—the old King James, the New King James, the NIV, the New American Standard Bible—all give a clear, accurate translation of the Word of God to you.

Is that true? Certainly not. See “What is God’s Word” above.ANSWERING THE CRITICS

In particular- some fatal errors/ wrong logic and misstatements in White’s arguments

1) White says you shouldn’t worry whether you are going to be accepted by others based on reading this or the other version. Problem is some versions are so corrupt that true believers can never accept it as truth- and if they do they are deceived. 2) White doubs whether Christ taught that His Word will be preserved! Ps 12:6-7 clearly teaches (in the KJV!) that God’s Word IS preserved. It would create a serious and worrysome and unsustainable situation if it were the case that God’s Word could not be preserved. This would for example mean that one could never be sure of salvation, or even sure if God existed!

White seems to assume there is no Satanic conspiracy to undermine God’s Word.

But Gen 3 clearly teaches us how the first trick Satan used to deceive man was to question God’s Words

4) White has got his facts wrong about Hort and Westcott’s alleged innocence.

QUESTIONS ALL CRITICS SHOULD ANSWER

Isn’t it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the “originals,” but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today? So God is not able to preserve His Word through the ages?

Since you believe that “the Bible” is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, or any of the New Testament authors ever practiced your terminology (“the Greek text says…the Hebrew text says….the originals ..a better rendering would be….older manuscripts read….” etc.). Shouldn’t this prove to you that GOD’S WORD is preserved, and that in English it must be the KJV?

Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as “God’s word”?

Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration/ decaying of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow “evolved” and that men are more qualified to translate God’s word today than in 1611?

There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it’s so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false “bibles”? And why can’t the KJV be that one true Bible, given the corruption of the modern versions as described in this paper?

Before the first modern Bible version was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?